In the latest episode of our podcast, Divided Argument, Dan Epps and I discuss at length the Court's immunity ruling in Trump v. United States. We end up substantially less divided on this one, with both of us generally agreeing that the consequences of the opinion are quite uncertain and not necessarily bad, but the legal basis and craft of the opinion is much worse—and much more. You can listen to the whole episode, "Back on the Island," here:
In other recent episodes we have analyzed:
SEC v. Jarkesy and Grants Pass v. Johnson in "Hope Springs Eternal." (Here's my earlier post on Jarkesy, generally sympatico with what the majority ended up doing.)
United States v. Rahimi and Erlinger v. United States in "Felony-Adjacent." (Here's my earlier post on Rahimi, generally sympatico with what the majority ended up doing.)
Garland v. Cargill, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, and John Q Hammons v. US Trustee in "Small Victories."
I'll have another piece on the whole term, and the Trump cases specifically, out tomorrow.
The post The Consequences and Craft of Trump v. United States appeared first on Reason.com.
